North Carolina Christian School (receives tax dollars) bars gay students and can kick you out if your sibling is gay.

[roguenuke]

The U.S. Postal Office charges for it's goods and services. It is subsidized by the government, which does not change the fact that when they lose customers, they lose income. That is why they can be considered to be somewhat in competition with FedEx and the rest.

The government school system, however, takes your money whether or not you use their good or service, and suffers no competitive pressure because it loses nothing when it fails or even harms it's students.



....Do you understand why, given that you appear to have given up answering points directly, and instead block-quote and reply with streams of consciousness that address some but not all of what I'm pointing out, this accusation comes off more like projection?

Note how you ignored the public transportation systems, which may charge but still don't have to give their funding that they get from government to private sources.

Yes, public schools use everyone's tax dollars for them, regardless if they have kids or not. They should not suffer competition for that money, as they are the government standard, societal standard. If you want different, pay for yourself, just as you would if you want to use your car to get to work rather than public transportation. And USPS is somewhat subsidized, gets some funding when needed from Congress, to ensure everyone gets the mail.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12516/3

I am tired of you avoiding evidence and going for the attacks as you have been doing.

 

[roguenuke]

That is a statement that means nothing and does not even begin to address the point that the government school monopoly is not in competition because it faces no competitive pressure, because it loses nothing when it harms or fails it's students, including when their parents pull them out as a result.



The money is for education.




Actually if we could devise a way to make transit more available to the public in a way that wouldn't require busses, especially if doing so was cheaper, then we should absolutely do that.

The point of the money isn't "own buildings" or "own busses". It's "ensure access to a service".



Food is absolutely needed. Call it whatever you like - GovFood, if that makes you feel better - the dynamics are the exact same. If an entity provides a good or service that it can force you to pay for regardless of whether or not you use that good or service, it is not under competitive pressures in a competitive market.




No. Respectfully, you are confusing "Means" with the "End"

No education at all is worse than a small amount offered. It would be better if we worked to fix it for all rather than trying to deflect a few students to private schools in a way that takes money from the public schools.

The money is specifically for public schools to provide that education.

Food is needed, fast food isn't. It isn't the same.

You can't prove that private or homeschooling is better than public schools. Especially for the majority. And these programs harm the majority.

 

[BrotherFease]

Again - the number one demographic that supports school vouchers is blacks and low income.
Why do you think that is?

Why don't you respond to the questions and commentary I posed?

 

[cpwill]

Note how you ignored the public transportation systems,

I did not ignore the public transportation systems. Instead, I addressed them in Post 125:

if we could devise a way to make transit more available to the public in a way that wouldn't require busses, especially if doing so was cheaper, then we should absolutely do that.

The point of the money isn't "own buildings" or "own busses". It's "ensure access to a service".

You then block-quoted this (after accusing me in post 119 of ignoring your points)... and ignored it.

which may charge but still don't have to give their funding that they get from government to private sources.

Because they are charging for a service. The same as Uber, or YellowCab, or Greyhound.

Yes, public schools use everyone's tax dollars for them, regardless if they have kids or not. They should not suffer competition for that money,

So you now accept that government schools are not, in fact, in competition, and you merely wish to keep them as a monopoly?

as they are the government standard, societal standard

No, they are a means of reaching that standard. They are not the purpose of the funding in and of themselves.

. If you want different, pay for yourself, just as you would if you want to use your car to get to work rather than public transportation. And USPS is somewhat subsidized, gets some funding when needed from Congress, to ensure everyone gets the mail.

And also charges for it's services, and loses money when it loses customers. It's subsidization does not mean that government schools outside of voucher systems are put into competition because they get the same amount of money for less work when they fail to provide either minimal safety or minimal achievement, and parents and students flee them.

I am tired of you avoiding evidence and going for the attacks as you have been doing.

The only thing I'm attacking here are inaccurate representations, and occasional strawmen and moved goalposts

 

[cpwill]

No education at all is worse than a small amount offered. It would be better if we worked to fix it for all rather than trying to deflect a few students to private schools in a way that takes money from the public schools.

The money is specifically for public schools to provide that education.

No, the money is allocated for ensuring our students have access to a minimally acceptable level of education (we are not, for example, hiring each individual student an astrophysicist to teach them geometry, even if that would be cool). If we can find a better way to do that (you have brought up online classes, for example, without stopping to realize that this is a way of funding education that does not require government school buildings), then we should do that better way.

Since, children and families are not one-size-fits-all, the best means of educating them will also probably not be one-size-fits-all.
Since monopolies tend to produce crappier products at greater expense, probably a monopoly is not the best structure.
Since competitive markets produce far superior products over time at reductions in expense (when they are allowed to function as markets), importing market pressure is a wise thing to do, so long as we make sure we retain a baseline that all our students have access to that minimally acceptable level of education for which we set this system up.

Food is needed, fast food isn't. It isn't the same.

Call it whatever you like - GovFood, if that makes you feel better - the dynamics are the exact same. If an entity provides a good or service that it can force you to pay for regardless of whether or not you use that good or service, it is not under competitive pressures in a competitive market.

You can't prove that private or homeschooling is better than public schools. Especially for the majority.

..... ?

Can you please cite where in this thread I have claimed that private or homeschooling is better for the majority of students?

And these programs harm the majority.

On the contrary - by forcing improvements on the government school system while also offering a means of escape for those schools unable to improve (or unable to improve fast enough), these programs will help the vast majority.